Comparison between six different cornea topography measurement instruments.

Comparison between six different cornea topography measurement instruments. - Comparison between cornea measurement instruments.

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

NL-OMON

Registry ID

NL-OMON34898

Enrollment

Registered

2010-05-28

Start date

2010-06-07

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2024-05-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

cataract pearl eye

Interventions

None listed

Eligibility

Age

18 Years to 99 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Subjects without any history of corneal eye diseases are included in this study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Subjects that have worn contact lenses for the past two years are excluded from this study. Furthermore subjects that had refractive surgery in the past are also excluded.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The primary parameters are the coefficients of the main Zernike-polynomials for coma-like aberrations C(3/-1) and C(3/1). These represent the objective results of the different cornea topography measurement instruments.	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Besides comparing the objective results of the instruments, it is also important to study the clinical user friendliness of the instruments. Therefore the time of total measurement of each instrument with each patient will be measured. Furthermore will the operator and the subject judge each instrument using grades from 1 to 10, where 1 is worst and 10 is best, on comfort and patient friendliness.	—

Measure

Time frame

Besides comparing the objective results of the instruments, it is also important to study the clinical user friendliness of the instruments. Therefore the time of total measurement of each instrument with each patient will be measured. Furthermore will the operator and the subject judge each instrument using grades from 1 to 10, where 1 is worst and 10 is best, on comfort and patient friendliness.

—

Countries

Netherlands

Outcome results